Therefore, the part of the attachment order case shall be excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court, notwithstanding Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Protection and Observation of Specific Criminal Offenders and the Electronic Monitoring, as there is no benefit to appeal.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of any other evidence to find the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case by mistake of facts, the lower court erred by finding the Defendant guilty of each of the facts charged solely with the victim’s statement.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (six years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

3. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but such judgment must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to find a defendant guilty in a criminal trial is to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, but to the extent that it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence which is recognized as probative value is not permitted beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The expression “reasonable doubt” refers to a reasonable doubt as to the probability of facts inconsistent with the facts that are not all questions and correspondences, but rather, based on the logical and empirical rule. Thus, the circumstance favorable to the defendant should be based on the sexual reasoning theory that is grasped in relation to the recognition of facts, and thus, it is included in a reasonable doubt based on conceptual or abstract possibility.